Was Gillard's knife in Ruud's back a replay of Keating's Ides of March?

For sheer merciless brutality deputy Gillard's political execution of her leader, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, has no equal in Australia's political history. Community revulsion at its cold-bloodedness is still palpable. Hardened journalists are still squirming at the image of Ruud broken and emotionally exhausted. Certainly for naked violence it outshines to the tenth power Keating's Ides of March slaying of Hawke.

But if Gillard's execution of Rudd can be compared to a thuggish clubbing with a minimum of planning for quick dispatch, Keating's sinister Machiavellian gathering of the senators with their hidden daggers has a refinement that Gillard's crude assassination entirely lacks.

The Ten network's telemovie 'Hawke' was not a bad film - impressive acting and a tolerable script, though not comparing with the best BBC programs the ABC is presently showing. More importantly, I think most people who followed politics during that period would find their memories coinciding with film's portrayal of the public events, which gives force to the portrayal of what happened behind the scenes. And what happened out of sight of the public? Well, behaviour far more nasty, grubby, perfidious and unconscionable than the great majority of Australians could have dreamed possible of men elected to the nation's highest offices.

Following the movie, the viewer was exposed to the sight of smug self-satisfied Hawke sitting next to his paramour Blanche D'Alpuget discussing his drunkenness and infidelities with smiling nonchalance, a repeat performance of the interview with Kerry O'Brien on ABC's '7.30 Report'. If one still retains a vestige of the traditional morality that has underpinned Western Civilisation, one can only shake one's head. What a contrast between Sir Robert Menzies and Robert Hawke, a contrast that evidently thrills many in the unions and Labor Party.

The film was not about Keating so we were only regaled with the Machiavellian activity of Keating and his fellow conspirators. One would dearly like to see an accurate portrayal of Keating's behind-the-scenes action, how and why he left his wife, and why the rumours about his alleged homosexuality arose and persist. Our suspicions have been aroused. The behind-the-scenes manoeuvring to usurp supreme political power, however, was enough. As in the case of Hawke, the film unveiled a far nastier, darker and more manipulative Keating than the public saw. And what the public saw was bad enough. There were two features of Keating's assassination of Hawke that were confirmed or unveiled.

First, Keating's motivations to get rid of Hawke were purely selfish: ambition, vanity and lust for power. It was as the movie's Hawke exclaimed: the nation's highest public office was not the play thing of government members like Keating who wanted his right 'to have a turn' satisfied - no matter what. Keating insisted on having his turn, regardless of how well Hawke was performing as Prime Minister, and it appears Hawke at the time was engaged successfully in important government work. To hell with all that, thought Keating. He would be Prime Minister. It did not take long for Australians to have his measure, which is an indictment of the grovelling attitude with which most of the media regard him.

The second feature which most of us were completely unaware of was the role numbers-man Grahame Richardson played. 'Richo' as he is affectionately called even by many journalists, is truly deserving of the epithet 'Machiavellian'. It appears that the critical point of the assassination came when Richardson wanted a cabinet portfolio from Hawke. When Hawke refused, Richardson withdrew the backing of the 'right faction' which deprived Hawke of the numbers to remain prime minister.

Once again, it leaves one gaping in dismay and incomprehension. How can the government of the land be exposed so cavalierly to the private ambitions of individuals who have their position on public trust, elected according to the rules of our parliamentary democracy? The answer is: this is the Labor Party. This is the way their leading lights behave, the truth of which is confirmed time and time again. One only has to think of the way Hawke's pals organised his eightieth birthday party.

Gillard's brutal assassination, supported by unelected union heavies, is in the tradition of the Labor Party. The lies, evasions and misrepresentations the Labor campaign is engaged in is also in the tradition of the Labor Party. Today's Adams Family mocking spoof of Tony Abbott and his team is also in the tradition of the Labor Party. It is no coincidence that Paul Howes, national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, is responsible for the ad. This contemptible man has absolutely no consciousness of right or wrong; it's only power that he and his mates are after. Whatever tactics are needed. The end justifies the means.

It is enormously ironic that the opening lines of the song that goes with the spoof are: 'They're tricky and their sneaky, dishonest and cheeky. They're all together freaky...' We have no doubt who is sneaky and dishonest in addition to unconscionable, nasty, scheming, lying and prepared to do or say anything to grab and keep political power.

Most Australians sadly do not realise to what extent people like AWU heavy Paul Howes are undermining Australia's democratic process. A Gillard ALP government is guaranteed to give us more of the same.

A postscript: Sallie Don, the journalist who wrote the report on this AWU ad, should be ashamed of her approving manner. A senior staff member should tell her that this is not good journalism. It is not the sort of journalism John Hartigan promised the country during last year's talk at the National Press club.

Comment: gerard@gerardcharleswilson.com